Fantastic, Flamboyant Freddy!

I ran into Peter Cresswell just before the concert began, and said, "Now I know why I never go out."

Auckland traffic on a Friday night is a nightmare.

And that's just the pedestrians.

It's a ten-minute walk from my hotel to the Town Hall. Seeing the tense and frenetic ... what are they called—humans? ... scurrying hither and thither as if in a nuclear panic, and hearing the headbanging caterwauling that blared from various establishments along the way, I thought again of Steven Mallory's drooling beast. Arriving at the inadequately sign-posted Town Hall, I felt no abating of my misanthropic pall.

Then, after a perfunctory warm-up piece by the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, whose strings were out of tune, on came Freddy Kempf for the Tchaikovsky.

He looked exactly as we've seen him here on SOLO—slim, radiant ... and hair-flopping. Yes, he came out with Perrental Advisory writ large.

Well, we certainly needed some kind of warning.

What Freddy unleashed cannot be put into words, at least by me.

When thunder was required, he was Thor himself. But there was tenderness to melt the coldest of hearts. And everything in between. And those unbelievably nimble fingers, of which I had a perfect view!

As he pounded the bottom of the piano for the final upward cadenza in the third movement, I feared for the safety of the instrument itself. So, evidently, did the conductor, who turned to peer solicitously down at it from time to time.

The climactic chords were truly a consummation of "the total passion for the total height," and I believe I was the first to start applauding, not to mention screaming, at the concerto's conclusion.

It was beyond KASS ... a perfect combination of flamboyance and nonchalance.

As was his encore, the Horowitz transcription of Stars and Stripes which, again, has been featured here several times.

In the bar, during intermission, I couldn't stop shaking. Sam Pierson saw my plight and poured my drink for me.

I elected not to linger for the Cacofiev that was the second half of the programme. Anything else after Freddy's Tchaikovsky would have been sacrilege.

I went to leave, but there was Freddy, signing CDs. I bought one, and, last in line, looked him in his beautiful eyes, held out my hand and said, "Freddy, may I touch those magic fingers? That was magnificent. Glorious. Masterly. Heartfelt. Thank you!" He took my hand and beamed. I suppose he realised I was a hopeless, swooning wreck, but he didn't let it show.

As I negotiated the Auckland foot-traffic again and heard the same headbanging as before, I thought of Dagny's line, "We never had to take it seriously, did we?"

More than anything else, I realise I have to remind myself: those things we Romantic realists worship, those supposedly yon things for which we yearn, those sacred special moments for which we live, those truly human intrusions into the world of the drooling beast ... they still happen!

Dr No Goode not a christian? Right then, you learn something every day around here. But he's a deist? I called him a goblin worshipper however, not a christian. I looked up deist and even the online dictionary was slippery; “a person who believes in deism.” On to deism; de•ism

–noun
1.
belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation ( distinguished from theism).
2.
belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

So, No Goode believes in god but omits the worship bit. Does he have fragile knees?

there should have been universal outrage within Objectivism about it. There wasn't. Just sycophantic silence or acquiescence. SOLO was the sole repository of outrage. And most of that came from me. Precious little solidarity from folk from whom I expected it. They were too busy playing politics with ARI.

But is "obsequious silence or acquiescence of those who should have known and did know better" the same thing as the (possible only) active betrayal/disloyalty of a friend? And one who has shared your wine, no less?!

Again, you could be said to be attributing bad motives where none exist.

If you stand up for something you know/believe to be right and others stay silent there are numerous different interpretations to be had for their motives:

(a) they don't agree with you (in which case their silence could be so as to not be actively disloyal to you); or

(b) they don't know or understand who is right (in which case their silence is simply sitting on the fence); or

(c) they agree with you but say nothing (in which case there could be numerous motives for this:
(i) they value their loyalty to and relationship with Mr Peikoff and don't wish to threaten it (which doesn't preclude them from valuing their relationship with you also)
(ii) they never get involved in disputes between "colleagues" as a matter of principle
(iii) they saw their self interest enhanced by not showing public allegiance to you and staying silent i.e., sitting on the fence politicians!
(iv) they saw their self interest enhanced by not showing public allegiance to you and behind the scenes (or openly) supporting Mr Peikoff i.e., hypocritical politicians!
(v) they saw their self interest enhanced by not showing public allegiance to you but behind the scenes supporting both you and Mr Peikoff! i.e., prime minister/presidential material! - the truly cynical view!
(vii) they agree with both of you (you, for your purism, idealism and integrity for voting as you believe and that is the end of the matter, Mr Peikoff because they believe his way is the practical way and will bring them closer to their ideals even though they may be sacrificing their true blue beliefs to get there;
(viii) they agree with you today but don't trust themselves that they will agree with you tomorrow (so silence is their answer to this swinging mind that maybe believes they need to know more before committing themselves)
(ix) other reasons (lawyers like to leave a catch all phrase for things they may not have considered!).

But none of these reasons necessarily should lead you to believe that people are disloyal or bad. They almost all just show that these people value self interest over anything else - truth, their beliefs, integrity etc. And their self interest is exercised in different ways according to their reason and values. They are Objectivists after all so what do you expect?!!! Self interest and what you value most is what matters isn't it? But it certainly does not mean that they are your enemies.

At worst they might be the sorts of people who value others' opinions of them / non confrontation / their positions in relation to Mr Peikoff/ARI over and above standing up for and being true to their own beliefs.Most likely is that they simply had no idea what they should do or who was right or who was more right than the other. That kind of mental paralysis can occur when two people you respect equally come up with completely opposing views. (E.g., The Libertarian who votes for another party rather than his own believing that in doing so he will make his vote worthwhile. One person has said, vote for what you believe in, another has said, vote for X because otherwise Y will get in again. He agrees with both and is silent right up to the time he gets to the the ballot box.)

It does indicate to me that the method of dealing with the division in opinion between you and Mr Peikoff may not have have been dealt with very well. Did any constructive discussion occur between you and Mr Peikoff for example? or was it all just squabbling amongst the rabble from the back seats?!

The problem when people disagree is when it becomes personal. Until people can disassociate their brains from their emotions and not hold their idea as a fixed immovable and have to be right at all costs they are unable to make headway in any discussion. It is vital to be able to want to see the same set of facts from another angle - the other person's angle - it's good to learn and see things differently for a start and secondly, if you don't, you won't understand it to see the pitfalls in it or see that it may even be a better way than your own. (gasp! horror!) It ought to be much easier between people with the same value system and seeking the same goals to work things out between them. Sometimes personality gets in the way! Mr Bandler, for example, seems to me someone who doesn't get personal. He is focussed on the ideas only.

Did I ever mention the story about the man in the playground looking at the little children playing? One woman says, "Oh, isn't that sweet?" Another woman says, "Ooooh. Get that man out of here." Same facts - why the different responses? One woman believes he is about to be a father, the other believes he is a paedophile. Until you seek to understand why someone thinks X, you can't make headway. The problem when emotion/ego is a factor in an argument, everyone wants to be the one to have the other understand his view and not the other way around. When I read about Calvinism, for example, I understood Olivia's position much better and all my previous negative emotions/attitudes about her left me. I believed I could see why she thought and felt as she did.

I don't believe people are born evil btw. I have said this many times before. I believe it is a mixture of a person's genes and environment that makes a person bad or good. But I do believe that God (or the belief in God whether or not He exists) can make a once bad person good. I have had experience with baddies/ex prisoners who have become Christians and remained Christians and become good people. I have also met ex prisoners who went back in to gangs and their old ways before long and they admit that this is what altered them. But, they have told me, for a while - before they became influenced by their mocking, jeering of Christianity friends - they only felt and wanted to do good.

So Linz, at the end of the day, you do your "self" no favours by believing the worst of people. That fear just stops you from experiencing the full joy in what you do. You will pull the curtains when you air conduct for example! Laugh with the people that can see humour in a funny picture of you air conducting but don't let it "get" to you. Or your soul will slowly become black and withered and fearful! It doesn't matter what other people do or say - it is their souls they are destroying by their cynicism or seeking to knock or put you down (if it is that - it may simply be a person who sees humour in all things but doesn't mean harm in it but they just haven't stopped to think of its possible effect on the person they are joking about. Maybe because they believe that person is as impenetrable and self assured as themselves. So don't let others damage your soul or your sense of life as you might call it. Remain pure in thought and true to yourself and be thankful that you are one of the few people who is. No wonder the Bible says, be as little children. Little children don't live with fear and cynicism, they trust and are innocent and joyous and I think that we adults can all learn from them in this way.

So am I shallow or nuts? I won't object to a macadamia nut. I quite like them.

Supurb and delightful review Linz. As you noted, outside the concert hall there was a cacophony of anti-human 'music' but for a brief hour all those inside the concert hall were being reminded what is possible in this world. And what a reception Freddy received from everyone. Bravo!

Meeting Freddy at the conclusion of the Rach 3, while unexpected, did provide the opportunity to see what a wonderfully genuine and delightful human being he is. His e-mail to you, while being further evidence of that, was also a demonstration that these special moments - as your term them - can, and do, happen.

The fatwa was my term for Leonard Peikoff's instruction to Objectivists to vote Dem-scum across the board in the 2006 congressional elections, on the grounds that a Republican-inspired theocracy was imminent. If they didn't, he said, they revealed their lack of understanding of the Objectivist view of the role of ideas in history.

Now, I'm the first to say that Leonard is brilliant, and a hero. But this was rubbish, and there should have been universal outrage within Objectivism about it. There wasn't. Just sycophantic silence or acquiescence. SOLO was the sole repository of outrage. And most of that came from me. Precious little solidarity from folk from whom I expected it. They were too busy playing politics with ARI.

... Jonathan recounted the story as something he'd been told by someone present. Yes, I'll hold to the thought that he may have been lying, or "spinning" as Ellen put it. But I was, and remain, spooked.

It's not just that incident, of course. I put my ass on the line on several occasions for what is demonstrably right against that which is demonstrably nonsensical within Objectivism, such as the fatwa—and was just appalled at the obsequious silence or acquiescence of those who should have known and did know better.

I did know of the air conducting story because it came up as a post at the top a short while ago and I read it then. I was appalled to read that betrayal of trust. And even to think of turning such an act of joy in to a thing to mock. Pure cruelty. I think it is great that you have enough "child" in you to let go of all that dull adult self consciousness. I like that very much. I am the same. It has been joked about as my love of "good clean fun"! Imagination is important and to keep it alive as you age is to stay forever young. (That's what I say anyway!)

But, Linz, I also read Ellen's post above the sad one of yours. I was very, very touched by her care for your feelings, her desire for the truth and her research to illustrate that you may have got that wrong. She said that you yourself had talked about your air conducting online and that Jonathan exaggerates for a good story. She linked all the references to OL and although someone asked for more material to scoff at you, there was none forthcoming. I would like to think that she was right and that it was only what you had said yourself about it and Jonathan's imagination to turn it into a "story" that created that. I.e., it doesn't prove that a friend and soulmate did in fact betray you. I think you should hold on to that and give "the suspect" the benefit of the doubt. If only to retain that belief and trust in one's friends. Because, if you think about it, to not do that - and if in fact it is as Ellen suggests and no one betrayed your trust - it becomes *you* betraying your friend and soulmate's values, if you get my drift. (Not well or very clearly expressed, sorry.)

Our posts crossed. Let me repeat: I at no stage thought or meant to insinuate that Baade had forged the Freddy e-mail. My point is that in a world where Baade's anti-values are pervasive, it's more likely that the e-mail was forged than that it came from Freddy, even though, as it turns out, it *did* come from Freddy.

You're right about one thing: my belief in people's goodness has been seriously damaged. (But it's *you* who, as a Goblian, believe in Original Sin and intractable depravity, Rosie!). I believe I told you and Richard the air-conducting story. I'll repeat it publicly. Ten years ago in the heady days of a forward-moving Libz underpinned by my nationwide radio show, The Politically Incorrect Show, there were frequent uproarious gatherings in my Auckland apartment of Libz activists whom I regarded not just as friends but as soulmates, in accord with my obviously-hopelessly-romanticised Band of Brothers view of friendship. Often I would get out my conductor's baton and give impromptu conducting lessons to those present, with some glorious piece of music blaring forth for us all to air-conduct. You know how these episodes ended up on O-Lying during the Music of the Gods debate, warped by that pig Jonathan, who has never met me, into a vainglorious exercise-in-farce with me all teary-eyed and jowl-quivering. Someone present on those occasions had represented them to him that way—someone whom I regarded as a friend and soulmate. To this day I don't know who it was. Obviously I have my suspicions, and I believe you know whom I suspect. But someone did it ... and I can't imagine a more reprehensible act of betrayal by someone who knows my values and affects to share them to the point where I allow him regularly into my apartment and to drink my wine.

So yes, for that and many other reasons I'm all out of benevolent universe premise, as I've already said. It's just a matter of seeing whose knife will be next.

An event like Freddy and its personal sequel is life as it might be and ought to be and occasionally is, but mostly isn't. You can't seriously fault me for initially doubting the authenticity of his message.

Funny thing here is, I have no problem believing in Original Sin, allegorically. There are simply too many anuses around for the yarn not to have plausibility. No doubt I'll have to check my premises quite seriously some time soon.

"Corrigible" means capable of being set right. I shudder to think what being set right by your standards would mean. Incorrigible I am, proudly. But I prefer the word "incorruptible"—impervious and immune to your hideous blend of scepticism and dogmatism (read: subjectivism and intrinsicism).

Why don't you and Rosie drag your goblinite asses to Peka-Peka and we can continue to have at it over an incorrigible red or seventeen.

Linz: So used am I to the horrible world of the likes of Babs Branden, Robert Campbell, Joe Maurone, Billy Beck and Richard Goode that I assumed it was a trick by a sniggering pomowanker.

Richard: My "world" isn't horrible, Linz. My life is good; it's a pity that your errant philosophy precludes you from being able to say the same thing about yours.

Olivia: What a cheap, cheap shot.

Richard: Why is it cheap?

Linz: "world" suddenly became "life." That's what made his comment cheap.

Richard: So, what did you mean by 'world', if not life?

Linz: Your values (or in your case anti-values)

Richard: 'World' is never a synonym for 'values'. 'World' is sometimes a synonym for 'life'. In the context, I presumed that by 'world' you meant 'life'. Why don't you take your own advice, and say what you mean?

Linz: Objectivism neither precludes my life being good nor my being able to say my life is good.

From another thread:
Richard: Is life good?

Linz: No, dumb-ass ...It is the standard of the good. Life simply is. Life is here. *We* are alive. We have no control over that. "Good" doesn't come into that part of it. Life is the standard of what enables us to *remain* alive, which we must choose to do, and the "good" consists of those choices that are life-conducive.

It is perfectly understandable to interpret the horrible world of R as the horrible life of R.

"Welcome to my world" is not usually translated "Welcome to my values". "Welcome to my life" is more usual.
"I don't mind living in a man's world as long as I can be a woman in it." Marilyn Monroe. Would you say "world" meant "life" or "values" to make sense?
Even by Objectivist standards where all ordinary meanings of words are distorted and redefined in such a way that one can never be sure what is being talked about! Ayn Rand: "Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.”

If "world" according to Linz means "values" and "value" according to AR is a contradiction in terms to talk of as apart from "life" then, even using O language, it would seem that Richard was perfectly entitled to interpret "world" as "life", perfectly entitled to defend himself against Linz's accusation that his life was horrible, perfectly entitled to defend himself against an unjustified insinuation that he forged an email from Freddy and perfectly entitled to declare under the heading Freddy who? : "My life is good; it's a pity that your errant philosophy precludes you from being able to say the same thing about yours."

Because in answer to Richard's question on the earlier thread, Off the Beaten Track, "Is life good?" Linz had replied, "No dumbass. Life simply is."

Why abuse Richard ("disgusting", "creep", "vermin") for his rejoinder in light of all that? It seems crazy!
And why interpret his rejoinder with saying it ws a cheap shot. It wasn't. It is logic.
Do you not recognise a statement (which is your own) about "life" in terms of the philosophy of Objectivism? You ought not to have misconstrued what he said. But again, you have read ugliness against yourself into innocence. Like the email. This is very sad, Linz. Your faith in people's goodness has been seriously damaged.

The words, "Freddy who?" was Richard's brief and subtle way of telling you that he could not possibly be responsible for sending a juvenile false email. He doesn't think about Freddy. He is not enamoured or overly interested in Freddy since his taste in music is not classical. You made a terrible insinuation that he would be capable of sending a false email. And to deny there was an insinuation when you say it may have been a trick by a sniggering pomowanker - words you have used to describe Richard in the past - is not easily defensible. Certainly he should be excused for taking this abusive meaning from it in all the circumstances. You insinuated he was capable of fraud, deceit and immaturity. You clearly have NO UNDERSTANDING of Richard's excellent virtue and moral character - he would never even think about doing such a childish thing. And where I would think it only childish, he sees it as "cruel" so deep is his sensitivity to others.

Think about it. Has he ever abused you back for all the names you call him? No. Has he always forgiven you when you get things wrong? Yes. Does he ever point it out in a way to humiliate you when you get things wrong? No. He does so with tact and sensitivity. ("Freddy who?" is an example of this. He could have ranted and raved and accused you of this and that, but no. He is gentle and subtle. He is clever and does you the compliment of expecting some thought by you in understanding subtleties. This is clever people's way of talking - understandings are reached without need for violent recriminations and namecalling - unlike the vulgar mob who communicate in just the opposite fashion with all kinds of hideous consequences. When I spat back at you, Linz, the other day after your accusations of my being "shalllow or nuts" he gently reminded me to not get seduced in to that way of talking.) Does he always stay calm in the midst of the rude and unjustified attacks on his character by so many (simply because you can never understand the subtleties of what he is saying because he doesn't elaborate presuming you to know more and understand more than you do)? Yes.

That is the nobility and sensitivity of an extremely clever and philosophical character.

Objectivism neither precludes my life being good nor my being able to say my life is good. The world, by contrast, isn't good because it's run by ghastly pomowankers like you, the low-lifes who say, "Freddy Who?" I make sure my life is good in spite of the world of you vermin.

[By 'world', I meant] Exactly what you knew I meant, which is why you changed it. Your values (or in your case anti-values)

No, I didn't know what you meant. I'm not a mind reader. 'World' is never a synonym for 'values'. 'World' is sometimes a synonym for 'life'. In the context, I presumed that by 'world' you meant 'life'. I presumed too much. Why don't you take your own advice, and say what you mean?

The meaning of your cheap retort was that Objectivism makes my very life itself not worth living

No, the meaning of my retort was that Objectivism precludes you from being able to say that your life is good. That's what I said, and that's what I meant. I didn't say that Objectivism makes your life not worth living. That's not what I said, and not what I meant. And you ought to have known what I meant, because we've had this conversation before.

Cacofiev is Prokofiev. "Cacofiev" alludes to the cacophonous nature of his "music."

The William Dart review is accurate in many ways. The instrument was lacking, and honky-tonk in clusters, and one feared (and the conductor feared) Freddy would destroy it. I mentioned this. But what awe-inspiring destruction it would have been. Freddy had, I believe, already broken 30 strings in rehearsal. Wotta brute! Hahahaha!

I can only imagine how gratified he must have felt when he read your passionate, enormously appreciative review. By comparison, I had a look at the review in the Herald - did you read it?

Your line:

I elected not to linger for the Cacofiev that was the second half of the programme. Anything else after Freddy's Tchaikovsky would have been sacrilege.

is perhaps the greatest, most sincere compliment to him of all. It is such a subtle bring-a-tear-to-the-eye compliment of the grandest scale. To have foregone the rest of the programme because to stay would have been irreverent to the sacredness of what you had heard. He must have been blown away by that. Really.

Exactly what you knew I meant, which is why you changed it. Your values (or in your case anti-values), the things that get you out of bed in the morning. The meaning of your cheap retort was that Objectivism makes my very life itself not worth living, when, quite apart from anything else, you know next to nothing about my life.

And did you really mean to insinuate that I'm the sort of person who would play such a cruel trick as to forge a letter from fantastic, flamboyant Freddy?

No. I meant that in a "world" run by your types, as it is—sniggering, headbanging-embracing, humanity-diminishing Freddy-Who? pomowankers—such a letter is more likely to be a hoax than real. As Sam and Olivia will testify, I spent some time trying trying to figure out who might have sent it.

In the end I happily acquiesced to the reality that it was real—that as I said in my review of Freddy's concert, these things still happen. In spite of you, Baade. In spite of Robert Sun-Ra Campbell, Neil Parille, Daniel Barnes and your whole cold-blooded, catastrophic coterie.

Actually, it's instructive to observe the unsubtle change that Baade engineered. Yes, I took a shot at the "world" of him and several others—advocates for headbanging caterwauling—and he and they are fully entitled to fire back. But "world" suddenly became "life." That's what made his comment cheap. Your sister is quite right. Stick to the pimping.

I don't begin to follow any of that. I'll take your word for it that you have it sussed.

I had Lady Slapper give Freddy my card and reinforce the message conveyed to him by a rampaging Sam: come join us for drinks. We *all* had the feeling he wanted to. My card has my mobile number on it. When we all got back to the lobby of my hotel for (my farewell) drinks, we realised that my mobile phone was up in my room. We joked that I'd go up to retrieve it and find "1 Message Received" on its screen. I went up to retrieve it, and sure enough ... !!! I took the phone downstairs, showed everyone the screen message, then with trembling hand set the process in motion of finding out who had called. It was not Freddy, but Shandra, Lady Slapper's daughter. We all collapsed in laughter.

I think Freddy got home to Berlin, googled me from my card, found SOLO and my review of his concert and wrote the message you've all seen.

I thought when he said he was pleased that you "got " it that you all must have spoken to him at the time about his performance.

That comment was in the second letter (after your reply to his first) and I thought you must have asked him, in your reply, why he wrote and whether you could put his first letter to you on SOLO.

You see? There is a rational explanation despite the rotting piece of flesh I call my brain - which is as rotten and decayed as my understanding of Genesis!

If my analysis is correct (and, like you, I am rarely wrong!) he must have:
(a) remembered you all at the concert;
(b) found your business card, looked you up on the internet and discovered SOLO and saw the photos;
(c) emailed you with reference to the words re "pimp his sister" as on the photo;
(d) got your reply; and
(e) emailed you back saying why he wrote and that you could post his letter on SOLO.

Of course he's viewed the thread. Did you miss this bit, as to why he made contact in the first place:

I wrote because I was just so happy that you “got” what I was about – some of the other reviews I received were albeit very positive but I did end up wondering whether the reviewers had actually missed the point… Please do feel free to put up my note on SOLO.

This is Freddy. I am very sorry I never managed to make it back to meet all of you for a drink. I want to reassure you that I was genuinely loaded up with all sorts of commitments and all I did to celebrate that night was sit alone, tired, in my hotel room gulping down some room service, and after the Rach rush to the airport and fly to Christchurch and fumble around in the dark arriving at Methven at around 11pm!

Was lovely to meet you and glad you enjoyed the concerts as much as I did. I just got back home (this afternoon) to Berlin with many fond memories of my time in NZ.

So shall hope to see you next time. It’s looking as if I might well be coming over on a much more regular basis – i.e. at least a lot more than once every 3 years!

OK – better go as am horribly jet-lagged – but just wanted you to know that Sam trying to pimp his sister hadn’t scared me off (entirely)

All the best,

Freddy

So used am I to the horrible world of the likes of Babs Branden, Robert Campbell, Joe Maurone, Billy Beck and Richard Goode that I assumed it was a trick by a sniggering pomowanker. It wasn't. I e-mailed Freddy and got back the most beautiful words of all:

I wrote because I was just so happy that you “got” what I was about – some of the other reviews I received were albeit very positive but I did end up wondering whether the reviewers had actually missed the point… Please do feel free to put up my note on SOLO.

simply amazing! Talk about being in the presence of greatness. His passion for the Rach 3 was obvious, in all the thundery parts his whole body convulsed and the hair flopping was exquisite! In the beautiful melodious tender moments his touch was simply sublime. It was terribly dramatic having this cellist keel over with a bang right in the middle of the climax - Freddy had to stop playing as she got cleared away with classic, quiet dignity - barely a word spoken. I had to rubber neck over the side of the balcony to see what all the commotion was. The poor dear had swooned and done a face plant. I don't blame her of course.

You know Freddy actually considered coming to have a drink with us afterward, he glanced up at the clock to do a quick time calculation, but alas he said he would only have a spare 20 minutes before being ferried away to the airport again - I'm sure it was probably that bombastic Sam who actually put him off. I gave him Lindsay's business card anyway in case he changed his mind. (It fell to me to pass Linz's card with his phone number - and while we were drinking, dizzy Linz had left his cell phone in his hotel room... when he realised this, he ran up to get it and there was one missed call from an unidentified number! He quiveringly rang it with all of us barely breathing in anticipation... and guess who it was who answered? Shandra, my daughter wanting to know where we all were.)

...which began somewhat diffidently, rather like the All Blacks, but came right within a few minutes (unlike the All Blacks, who still came right eventually). Some poor woman cellist was so smitten by Freddy she fainted during the third movement, and brought it to an abrupt halt, as instrument and body crashed loudly to the floor. Lights went on full, sundry doctors in the house rushed to the stage, and the stricken lady was brought to her feet and escorted off, apparently the victim of lack of oxygen as much as Freddy-mania (that Town Hall is crap in every respect). Whereupon Freddy and orchestra resumed more or less from the point at which they'd left off, and effected a resounding finale to another beyond-magnificent, devastatingly hair-flopping performance.

There are rumors of photographs of me and Freddy having been taken afterwards. And that further incriminating photographs of Lady Slapper and Pierson competing for Freddy were also taken. I couldn't possibly comment, but I await the presentation of the evidence with delicious anticipation.

I sat forward in my seat the entire concerto, mainly moving up levels of astonishment and speechlessness. He's a champion of the highest order, and clearly enjoys it. The encore was perfect... we got to hear and watch him show off his brilliance, fun, and carefree command of the instrument. Simply the best and some.

Navigation

More SOLO Store

Syndicate

The opinions expressed here are the unmoderated views of the contributors who express them.They do not necessarily reflect the views of other contributors, or of SOLO, and do not necessarily align with Objectivism.